CW7:2501
From Environmental Technology
Jalcst-2501 (Talk | contribs) |
Jalcst-2501 (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
EPICC is an initative working to insure....that women's health insurance providers include contraceptives in their coverage. It's covered in Federal Health plans and by 23 states with 11 more states working on it, but it's sillyto think that contraceptives are not a necessary part of health care and just another example of our man run society. The costs to insurance companies and those insured would be minimal, but I guess some arm bending is needed. | EPICC is an initative working to insure....that women's health insurance providers include contraceptives in their coverage. It's covered in Federal Health plans and by 23 states with 11 more states working on it, but it's sillyto think that contraceptives are not a necessary part of health care and just another example of our man run society. The costs to insurance companies and those insured would be minimal, but I guess some arm bending is needed. | ||
Abstinence only programs are crazy. No talk of contraceptives are allowed and people aren't suppossed to have sex until they are married. Uh huh. These programs are eating up federal funding so W. and his cronies can keep Christian conservatives on their side. | Abstinence only programs are crazy. No talk of contraceptives are allowed and people aren't suppossed to have sex until they are married. Uh huh. These programs are eating up federal funding so W. and his cronies can keep Christian conservatives on their side. | ||
| - | The first | + | The first two programs have worked and are working as long as they get proper funding. When women are giving the opportunity to do what they need to do to protect themselves, for the most part, they do it. The abstinence programs will be looked on in the future as ridiculous and just a way of eating away at the progress that had been made. |
| - | In Family Planning Around the World Sierra Club lists United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund. | + | In Family Planning Around the World Sierra Club lists United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund. I guess the first one is okay because they are providing women with options. As long as they are options and not mandates, it seems pretty good. Voluntary is once again the keyword with the second program, which was doing fine until certain politicians deemed them unworthy. ahem. |
| + | |||
| + | Abstinence only programs seem to be the most boneheaded option. If that is what parents want to tell their children, that's cool, but they shouldn't force their views on everyone else. Little Bobbie and Susie, whose parents don't talk to them at home, need to know what their options are and the school may be the only place they get it. People, in my opinion, should be given the rights to make INFORMED descisions. Put the information and resources out there and let them have at it. Ignorance isn't bliss, especially when it comes to getting pregnant. | ||
| + | |||
| + | B) | ||
Revision as of 20:24, 26 March 2006
A) The programs listed by the Sierra Club include: The National Family Planning Program: Title X, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC), and abstinence only programs. The Title X program was established in 1970 to provide funds for clinics to provide preventative health services and referals for women. It helps 1 million women a year avoid unwanted pregnancies and has prevented numerious abortions and teen pregnancies. No new funding has been granted to the program since 2001, and funds are being denied if the states do not match funding to abstinance only programs. Yea W. EPICC is an initative working to insure....that women's health insurance providers include contraceptives in their coverage. It's covered in Federal Health plans and by 23 states with 11 more states working on it, but it's sillyto think that contraceptives are not a necessary part of health care and just another example of our man run society. The costs to insurance companies and those insured would be minimal, but I guess some arm bending is needed. Abstinence only programs are crazy. No talk of contraceptives are allowed and people aren't suppossed to have sex until they are married. Uh huh. These programs are eating up federal funding so W. and his cronies can keep Christian conservatives on their side. The first two programs have worked and are working as long as they get proper funding. When women are giving the opportunity to do what they need to do to protect themselves, for the most part, they do it. The abstinence programs will be looked on in the future as ridiculous and just a way of eating away at the progress that had been made.
In Family Planning Around the World Sierra Club lists United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund. I guess the first one is okay because they are providing women with options. As long as they are options and not mandates, it seems pretty good. Voluntary is once again the keyword with the second program, which was doing fine until certain politicians deemed them unworthy. ahem.
Abstinence only programs seem to be the most boneheaded option. If that is what parents want to tell their children, that's cool, but they shouldn't force their views on everyone else. Little Bobbie and Susie, whose parents don't talk to them at home, need to know what their options are and the school may be the only place they get it. People, in my opinion, should be given the rights to make INFORMED descisions. Put the information and resources out there and let them have at it. Ignorance isn't bliss, especially when it comes to getting pregnant.
B)
